NMJablonski comments on What is Metaethics? - Less Wrong

31 Post author: lukeprog 25 April 2011 04:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (550)

Comments (550)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 07:30:47PM * 5 points [-]

I'm sorry. It's clear that you're motivated to "win" an argument, not get at reality.

For the record, words do not have intrinsic meanings. If you are willing to use simpler words that we are likely to agree on to explain what you mean by "moral", "right" and "good" then I will be happy to read it. Otherwise, I just cannot take you seriously enough to continue this.

EDIT: If you really would like to discuss this I suggest we move to the LessWrong IRC channel instead of making a long person to person thread here.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (360 children)

Comment author: nhamann 27 April 2011 08:33:14PM 3 points [-]

You think that claiming to have no understanding at all of ordinary words is getting at reality?

It's almost never sufficient, but it is often necessary to discard wrong words.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 08:47:32PM 0 points [-]

..and it's necessary to have a reasoned motivation for that. If you could really disprove things just by unmotivated refusal to use language, you could disprove everything. Meta-principle: treat one-size-fits-all arguments with suspicion.

Comment author: Cyan 27 April 2011 08:51:24PM * 1 point [-]

Meta-principle: treat one-size-fits-all arguments with suspicion.

Around here we call those "fully general counter-arguments".

ETA: you've misunderstood the grandparent, the point of which is not about a refusal to use language but rather about using it more precisely so as to avoid miscommunication and errors.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 09:09:18PM 0 points [-]

I have not noticed NMJabalonski offering a more precise replacement vocabulary.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 April 2011 09:11:31PM 5 points [-]

Probably because he doesn't know what to replace it with. You introduced the words into the conversation. We're trying to figure out what you mean by them.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 09:36:10PM -2 points [-]

I did not introduce the words "moral", "good" etc. They are not some weird never-before encountered vocabulary.

Comment author: [deleted] 27 April 2011 09:50:41PM * 6 points [-]

You're promoting illusion of transparency. Just explain what you mean, already.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 10:03:22PM -2 points [-]

I can only do that if you understand the language I intend to do the explaining in. It's called English. Do you understand this language?

continue this thread »

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 09:16:14PM 0 points [-]

This summarizes the situation nicely I think. Thanks.

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 09:13:43PM 2 points [-]

I have not been offering one.

I have been requesting one.

I don't see any substantive, real world connection to words like "good" or "moral" in this context. I am assuming you do mean something real by them, and I am asking you to convey that meaning by using simpler words that we both already understand in concrete terms.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 09:42:57PM -1 points [-]

And I think you are as capable as anyone else of seeing the ordinary meanings of these terms. There is no guarantee that they are definable in simpler terms or in concrete terms, since it is likely that some concepts are basic or abstract. You have an unusual inability to understand these terms. and an unlikely background theory of meaning. I think those two facts are connected.

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 09:52:03PM 0 points [-]

I think you will find my thoughts on this matter are relatively common in this community.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 09:53:49PM 0 points [-]

But not in the wider world.

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 08:02:49PM 0 points [-]

Alright sport. If you're unwilling to explain, you can go on being an amateur ethicist and I'll resume my policy of ignoring the field until something interesting happens.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: prase 28 April 2011 03:13:10PM 2 points [-]

things any adult English speaker knows

... while no two adult English speakers agree on what precisely those things are.

Comment author: Peterdjones 28 April 2011 03:22:11PM 0 points [-]

...although they will agree approximately. "it's not maximally precise from the get go" is a generalised counterargument.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 28 April 2011 05:52:44PM 1 point [-]

...although they will agree approximately

It is not at all obvious that this is a good enough approximation to deal with any interesting situation.

Comment author: CuSithBell 27 April 2011 08:19:26PM 3 points [-]

It turned out you were wrong about this! However you'd like it phrased - you did an experiment that failed to confirm your hypothesis, you need to Notice Your Surprise, etc. - you should update on this information.

Comment author: Amanojack 27 April 2011 09:14:57PM 2 points [-]

Refusal to define the key terms that make or break your argument never ends well.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 09:38:53PM * -1 points [-]

What argument? I have so far said little more than that the claim that "morality" is meaningless in ordinary English is unlikely. I don't need anything more than an ordinary dictionary definition for that.

NMJablonski comments on What is Metaethics? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (550)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (550)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login